Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Haycock


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Haycock

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails to assert notability Maniamin (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reliable source I could find was the Salt Lake Tribune; everything else is somehow related to LDS and not independent as per the reliable sources guideline. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Article doesn't provide any sources that assert notability. A nn Mormon official. Computerjoe 's talk 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Secretarys of the First Presidency most of htem have biographies on Wikipedia. Should the Prophets personal secretaries get the same priveleges? If I am not mistaken Clare Middlemes may have a bio on here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southidaho (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) *Weak keep per Hobit. Deletion Mutation 18:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep He wrote a book and has been cited in many others, Has a article written about him  , had a speech given in tribute to him (also an article in effect) .  One can argue about the indepence of the sources and certainly the article needs a lot of help, but he seems notable. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 20:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep subject has received at least passing reference in several other books as well, as per google scholar. Part of the problem to me seems to be that it is very possible that Mormons might receive comparatively little coverage in anything which can't be said to be tied to the Mormon church, including the Utah newspapers, publishing houses, etc, so that particular qualification might be unusually hard to meet in these instances. But the subject does seem to be in enough sources which are considered reliable and reputable, if not independent, to merit an article. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.